Archive for December, 2008
Six Lessons from a Wooden Boy: Part Two: Online Reputation Means Straight Talk
by Jennifer Laycock
For as long as there have been web sites, people have posted their thoughts, opinions and rants about people and companies and for as long as there have been search engines, consumers have found and read those thoughts. While it’s been several years since companies began to realize the value of tracking and managing their reputations online, the explosion of social media has made online reputation management more complex and necessary than it’s ever been before.
In this six part series, I’ll be exploring six valuable lessons you can learn from the classic story of Pinocchio and offering up some input on how to apply it to your own marketing plans. If you are just joining the series, catch up on past articles:
Six Lessons from a Wooden Boy: Part One: Search Engines Want to be Real Boys
Why Online Reputation Management Matters
Let’s think about why the things people say about you online matter. Back in 2005, I wrote a post called “Online Reputation Management, Are You Doing It?” In that post, I explained it like this:
Imagine that you’ve just left a business meeting with a potential client. You’ve pitched your services, impressed them with your portfolio and given them a competitive pricing bid. You’ve all but sealed the deal and are confident that with a follow-up call, you’ll have them signing the paperwork and faxing the contract over to your office.
Now imagine that you are the client. After a great meeting and a proposal that sounds great, you decide to run a quick search online for the company that just pitched you. You run their name through Google or Yahoo! and there, just under the company’s web site is a link to a message board. You click the link and find a posting by a disgruntled customer that claims to have had a bad experience with the company you are considering hiring. Is that search result going to taint your opinion of the company you were ready to sign a contract with? Chances are high that it will.
Of course these days it’s never as simple as one web page with one opinions. No…these days what we find are blog posts with long strings of comments, or daisy chained blog posts that refer to the original complaint and pile new complaints on top. We see these posts getting picked up and tossed around social media services like Twitter and Facebook and we see companies rise and fall in hours as the social media hordes decide whether to worship or vilify the company of the moment.
For Better or for Worse…
Sometimes, managing your online reputation is about slowing down or stopping negative momentum before it reaches the mainstream press. The makers of painkiller Motrin learned this lesson just last month after posting a fairly controversial ad aimed at baby-wearing mothers.
You can get a great recap of what happened from Laura Fitton, including a video with the compiled Twitter posts on the topic. The impact, though short lived, was huge. Jeremiah Owyang breaks down the numbers on his blog.
Granted, the story did get picked up by the New York Times parenting blog and by USA Today and both of those results now show in the top ten for a search on “Motrin” but the results could have been far worse.
Of course the impact of positive talk about your company can be just as strong. I’ve written in the past about the I Heart Zappos blog post and the impact a single post by a single person had on spreading the word and increasing good will about an online company.
So Where Does Pinocchio Fit In?
So at this point you’re thinking “that’s nice Jen, but what does Pinocchio have to do with all this?” Well, let’s consider Pinocchio and that fast growing tree branch of a nose he had. When Pinocchio told a lie, his nose grew longer. The more lies he told, the bigger (and more obvious) his nose (and the lies) became.
That’s a valuable lesson for companies looking to be involved in the conversation online because one of the single most important qualities any company needs to succeed online is honesty. Whether it’s being transparent about who you are and what your motivations are when contacting bloggers or owning up to the mistakes you’ve made and doing your best to correct them, honesty will get a company further in social media than just about any other tactic out there.
Tell a lie, misrepresent reality or fail to address legitimate concerns and the problem will grow as noticeable and become as much of a nuisance as Pinocchio’s nose.
People Are Savvy
Consumers are becoming more and more savvy these days. They have the resources to research almost anything they want to and they have legions of other consumers to gather input and opinions from. Self appointed watch dogs can bring a company to its knees. On the other hand, self appointed evangelists can send a company soaring.
Look at Dell and Walmart and how each company has handled themselves online. While Dell started off shakily, their turn-around is one of the most well documented social media success stories on the history of the web. Why? Because they understood the value of being credible, authentic and consistent. On the other hand, brands like Walmart have failed to find social media success time and time again because they continue to rely on self-centered, manufactured messages that are inconsistent and ultimately prove the company to be untrustworthy.
In the next installment in the series we’ll take a look at the realm of social media and why Pinocchio’s experience of growing a donkey tail and ears can teach you a valuable lesson.
Flick creative commons license photo credit: Llawliet
Check out our small business news site.
I’m a Google Convert But I Still Want to See Competition in Search
by Stoney deGeyter
Over the last few months I’ve become a convert to Google. I’ve always used Google as my primary search engine but only recently have I started using a few other Google products such as Gmail, calendar and documents. I’m a fan.
But when it comes to search, I’m fed up with Google’s dominance. We could use a little competition in search.
Of course, it’s really not Google’s fault that they run between 50-70% market share, depending on who you ask. It’s really the fault of all of us searchers. We use Google because we like the results. We don’t use Yahoo or MSN because for whatever reason we feel the results are inferior.
Google got to where it is because it earned it. None of the other engines seem to be able to dent that and are losing market share to Google each month. However, I’d be surprised if anybody would notice if Google’s results were swapped with MSN’s for a week. Psychologically I feel that I’ll get better results from Google, but I don’t know if its true or not because I really don’t use any other engine frequently enough. Heck, even using Google I often don’t find what I’m looking for anyway.
While each engine has to do it’s part to find ways to produce better search results, what makes any search engine competitive is the user. As long as users don’t feel the need to switch to Yahoo or MSN, Google will always dominate. I have some problems with that as a searcher and as a business that makes a living by being found in the search results.
Cons of having one dominant search engine
- Rankings in other engines mean little in terms of traffic.
- Losing positions in the dominant engine can create a noticeable drop in traffic.
- Competition for top positions can be extremely fierce lowing the ROI of the investment of achieving such rankings.
- Algorithm changes on one engine, causing loss of top rankings, can devastate a business.
Pro’s of having multiple dominant search engines
- Multiple engines create additional opportunities for site branding in search results as searchers move from one engine to the next.
- Searchers have more opportunities to find quality sites, if each engine produces differing results.
- Many businesses will focus on one or two engines only creating more availability and less competition for top positions, and therefore increasing the ROI value.
- Ranking losses one engine will be far less noticeable when a multi-engine strategy is employed.
Of course there are also drawbacks to having multiple competitive engines as well:
- Optimization for many engines can be more difficult than a single engine, though competition will be more spread out.
- It’ll be unlikely that one site will dominate the top spots of all competitive engines. This can be a pro for you against fierce competition, but a con if you are the fierce competition.
- A top ranking on a single search engine will produce less traffic and revenue overall. This means a multi-engine strategy will need to be employed OR that your site must be the Destination Website for your industry.
Personally, I believe that the more competing search engines there are, the better we’ll all be. But because Google is so entrenched as the dominant engine its going to take more than another engine simply being as good as Google. I think that some of other engines have surpassed Google in some key areas, such as user experience, quality of results, result segmentation, but none have beat Google in all areas simultaneously. And it’s not been enough to attract an growing audience. It’ll come down to the average searcher to start using other engines for their web searches.
If you’re a searcher, you have to ask yourself if you really do get superior results from Google or if you just think you do. Even if you do, are the results on the other engines that much inferior that you can’t find what you want?
If you’re a business owner you need to think about what you can do to increase your competitive arena. If you already achieved top spots in Google or not, start to transfer some market share to Yahoo or MSN and soon others will follow. And as they do you are opening up new opportunities to compete and drive traffic to your site.
This next year I’m replacing Google as my default search engine. I may use MSN or Yahoo or perhaps both, depending on the circumstances. If I go to Google it’ll only as a last resort, if the other engines don’t give me what I’m looking for. I’m willing to bet that will happen far less than I suspect. Not only that it will show me that there is life beyond Google. And maybe, just maybe, we can start seeing some competition in search start to happen.
Check out our small business news site.
Six Lessons from a Wooden Boy: Part One: Search Engines Want to be Real Boys
by Jennifer Laycock
It’s been more than two and a half years since I first wrote about the “Pinocchio Effect” as a way to explain the ever changing nature of search engine algorithms. Earlier this month, while preparing for the new small business panel at SES Chicago, I read through that old article and realized just how many areas of the Pinocchio story can be applied to online marketing.
In this six part series, I’ll be exploring six valuable lessons you can learn from the classic story of Pinocchio and offering up some input on how to apply it to your own marketing plans.
Today’s post sets the stage with an updated take on my original article: “Search Engine Algorithms: Understanding the Pinocchio Effect.” Here’s how I described it back then:
You see, deep down, search engines want nothing more than to be real boys (or girls). That’s right, it’s that simple. As search engine engineers gain more and more ability to tailor the algorithms, their ultimate goal is to help the search engines make choices the way that people do.
Succinctly put: Search engines seek to replicate human judgement with their algorithm. Every change they make aims to help them judge a site the way a human would judge a site.
The original post was inspired by questions that kept popping up during the Q&A of some sessions at a past SES New York show. At the time I wrote:
People would ask what keyword density they needed to focus on, or how many words they should use in their Title tag. Well-meaning attendees would ask for the magic number of links to get per week or how to know exactly when to request an incoming link instead of a reciprocal link. In other words, everyone wanted to know the magic formula that would guarantee them great results.
The problem with this line of questioning is that there is no magic formula. Each and every time these questions were asked, the panelists would carefully try to explain that while there may have been magic numbers in the past, those days are behind us now. That’s not really the answer that attendees want to hear, but the reality is that search marketers need to find a new way to explain the concepts of algorithms to their customers, one that takes the focus away from math.
For the most part, I’m seeing these types of questions fade away at search conferences. That said, they’re now being replaced with new questions that follow the same patterns. People want to know how many links they need to get a good ranking. They want to know which social media sites carry extra “weight” to help them rank better. They want to know if blogs are the magic tool to rocket their rankings. They’re still ultimately looking for a magic formula, even if they know the ingredients in the formula have changed.
Why Chasing Down the Algorithm Simply Leaves You Exhausted
Of course that leads to another problem…the problem with SEO formulas. While it’s true search engine algorithms are essentially complex “formulas” it’s not generally feasible to focus on reverse-engineering them so you can determine exactly what changes to make to your site. Engines like Google rely on literally hundreds of factors in determining ranking and no one but their engineering team truly knows how each of those factors are weighted. While it’s true there are some individuals and companies out there who are fairly well known for their ability to test and determine new algorithm factors, this method of optimization simply isn’t practical for 95% of the companies looking to increase their rankings.
For the rest of us, this type of optimization is known as “al go-chasing.” You’ll often see it on discussion forums as one person announces the results of a “test” they’ve run and legions of other rush off to make edits to their web sites to reflect this new information. Unfortunately, algo-chasing generally results in a lot of work with very little pay off. Stoney deGeyter wrote a great advice post on this several years ago called “Common Sense Algorithm Chasing.”
Applying Common Sense
Let’s go back to our simple definition of the Pinocchio Effect and see it in action. If search engines are looking to replicate human judgement, it means we can match up the changes in the algorithm with a better understanding of how humans value a web site. This is probably most clear through the progression of how engines like Google have valued links.
Back when Google first blasted on the scene with some of the best search results any engine had delivered, it was their reliance on links that made them special. Google had figured out that linking was the online equivalent of a vote of confidence. With that in mind, the algorithmic adjustments went a little something like this…
1.) Link Quantity – Originally, search engines were most concerned with the number of links pointing to a site. They viewed each link as a vote of confidence and made the natural assumption sites with more links were of higher quality. (Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for site owners to figure this out and to start finding ways to build new links on their own.)
2.) Link Text – As site owners began actively seeking links, search engines realized they needed to improve this area of the algorithm to give them a better idea of just how valuable a link was. A natural progression was to read and consider the anchor text (the blue, underlined text a user clicks on to link to a new page) and to factor that text into the algorithms. It made sense that if a site had a million incoming links using the word “pizza” the site those links were pointing to was probably about pizza. (Once again, it didn’t take long for site owners to figure this out and to begin seeking specific link text.)
3.) Link Quality – As site owners once again began to catch up with the algorithm, the search engines moved on to the next stage. This time around they not only looked at the number of links and the text describing those links, they looked at the quality of the site the link was coming from. By using their first two link judgements, they could easily tell if the site giving the link was popular (lots of links) and related (topical words and anchor text). It was natural to assign more weight to the links coming from respected, related sites. (Any surprises here? Site owners catch up and start seeking these types of links.)
4.) Link Age – As site owners began creating better link building campaigns, the engines needed to create better ways of judging those links. The next step for the engines was to put value on the age of a link. After all, a site that has had quality links pointing to it for years is a sure sign of an established and trusted site. At the same time, a very recent link could be a great way to tap a site as having good coverage on breaking news or a hot new topic. As such, the engines began adding the age of a link to their equations. (and once again, site owners took notice and started working on this strategy, often by buying established domains with incoming links to build new businesses on.)
5.) Link Buys – Eventually, seeking out quality links from quality sites in a world where everyone else is doing the same became fairly difficult. While still doable, many businesses turned to purchasing links as a faster way to control and build the links coming into their sites. The engines, always seeking to replicate human judgement, decided a purchased link was not worth as much as an “earned” or freely given link. As such, they’ve spent the last year or two working on ways to combat paid links and threatening to harm the rankings of sites who either buy or sell links.
Applying the Pinocchio Effect
What’s next in this progression? Any number of possibilities exist. Overall though, the path becomes clear. Each and every adjustment made to the algorithms is designed to better judge a site the way a human being does. Ultimately, the sites that are built in a search engine friendly manner and designed to benefit users tend to come out ahead. It’s essential to understand search engine friendly design techniques and to learn how to find out which keywords to target. Once you get the basics down, it’s really about focusing on your customer and giving them the best experience possible.
In the next article in this series, I’ll take a look at how Pinocchio’s rapidly growing nose teaches us a valuable lesson about online reputation management.
Check out our small business news site.
Use Caution When Growing Your Site
If you’re planning on rapidly expanding the size of your site, exercise some care. Devise a strategy that will lead to pages that have something to offer users, and you will stay out of trouble with search engines, and better serve your users at the same time. …
The Paid Links Debate Rages On
Most ethical SEOs will tell you that paid links are a dangerous path to go down. Google will tell you that paid links will get you into hot water. At the same time, you see rankings which are obviously being generated through paid links. What’s an ethical SEO to do? …
Taking a Small Business to the Big Time Through Search
So you own a small e commerce shop and are wondering how to expand your business? As you may or may not know by now, search can drive an incredible amount of traffic to your site. …
Will Social Networks Become the New Inbox? Part 2
Many companies still believe they need to get users into their prospecting databases in order to market to them. But businesses capture a lot more information via social media about their consumers than they’ve ever had before. Good businesses realize though, that the relationship still needs to be cultivated. Just like dating, companies need to learn how to court their customers in social networks. …
SEO Site Structure 101, Part 2
We began our discussion of site structure last week by looking at meta tags. This week, we continue exploring the SEO impact of site structure, including title tags, URL structure, and other on-page elements. …
Dumb and Dumber: E!’s The Soup Blog Links to a YouTube Video Taken Down By E!
I’m a big fan of The Soup (Fridays, 11pm 10pm EST), an E! network clip show that makes fun of the entertainment industry. It’s where I first learned that the camera-shy Amish were selling fireplaces that you can roll around the house (only 2 per household!). It’s also where the whole Cameron Mathis’ thong-no-wait-it’s-a-tshirt scandal erupted.
So when I was reading The Soup blog featuring a YouTube video about the Amish fireplace (here’s visual proof, click to enlarge)
and the copy below included a link about the Cameron Mathis situation, naturally, I clicked on it. Here’s what I found:
In case you can’t read that, it says:
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by E! Entertainment Television
That’s right. E! linked to a YouTube video which it had YouTube take down because of its own copyright.
Give it up, E! YouTube had 100 million unique visitors in October. Don’t you want people watching your network? Ok, at least The Soup?
Related Reading:
YouTube Doesn’t Change The Way We Think – It Matches the Way We Think
Online Video Wins the 9-5 Hour, Weekdays
Lawrence Lessig Calls for the Demolition of the FCC
Just weeks before the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States, Lawrence Lessig has taken to the pages of Newsweek to call for the demolition of the FCC. His reasoning is that the FCC curries favor for monopolies which keeps big business and big beaurocracies in power.
Lessig wants the FCC replaced by a government regulation agency he dubs the iEPA, the Innovation Environment Protection Agency. The agency would be established by Congress and would keep a check on monopolies and the government in order to spur and protect innovation.
While Lessig makes some good points about the use of patents and copyrights, trading one government agency for another doesn’t seem like a plausible solution.
Lessig’s primary goal is the desire of many Americans – to rid government of corruption in order to create a level playing field for innovation, technology and business. His idea with the iEPA is that no one in the agency would have ties to the industry. But how do you find qualified individuals without ties?
Furthermore, the current FCC is already enabling some of the goals that Lessig desires, such as open spectrum. This year’s spectrum auction was won by Verizon but requires, due to a big enough bid by Google, to keep the spectrum open.
If Lessig truly wanted to create change, he could have probably had the job of FCC chairman. He’s been friends with the President-elect since they taught together at the University of Chicago.
Whatever the reality behind Lessig’s piece, the man is a curiosity indeed. His keynote speech at SES Chicago was appropriately academic, demonstrating the obvious need for archaic federal regulations to be updated for the YouTube hybrid generation.
Related Reading:
Google, Lessig Defend Net Neutrality Positions (Mis) Stated in Wall Street Journal